A Research Framework for the Archaeology of Wales
East and Northeast Wales – Roman
22/12/2003
Our
understanding of this, the largest of the four regions into which Wales has
been divided for the purpose of conducting the Regional Research Assessment Seminars,
negates a current perception of the Romano-British period as over-researched,
the exercise being essentially repetitive, even sterile. In the Romano-British period it is probably
the Cinderella of the Welsh regions, with yawning gaps in our very basic
knowledge. Indeed, as I hope to
demonstrate, without a substantial increase in the volume and quality of our
data-base we cannot even begin to address the more challenging questions
pertaining to the effects of incorporation into the Empire -as outlined in James & Millett’s
recently published edited volume (essentially pertaining to England) Britons
and Romans: advancing an archaeological agenda (CBA: York: 2001). A comparable exercise for Wales as a whole
(though such geographical divisions in the Roman age is entirely artificial and
thus undesirable) can only be pursued if the above criteria are satisfied. If not, then such an exercise becomes
largely imitative and highly theoretical in character.
Our
region is characterised by a lack of obvious signs of Romanity in its
settlement pattern; urban centres, of civitas type or of the
‘small-town’ variety, are absent. Only
one site can securely claim villa status.
Military remains are all too obvious, testifying to a seemingly
protracted presence. In the pre-Flavian
period, with Gwent and the Marches, it was the scene of intense military
activity. It is thus one of the most
interesting areas of study for a number of reasons. Lying on the interface between the West Midlands and the
mountainous heart of Wales it spanned a strategic interface for the military,
whilst at the same it has a propensity to produce highly distinctive settlement
forms exhibiting the characteristics of both the English lowlands and Welsh
uplands.
Interfaces
have always proved attractive from a research standpoint, and our region is no
exception. There have been numerous
publications on the Welsh Borderland, though the Welsh side of the political
divide has proved the poor relation. At the same time we need to bear in mind
that we cannot understand developments within our region without reference to
other parts of Wales, the neighbouring English Counties and, of course, Britannia
as a whole. In this respect it is
necessary to appreciate the fact that the Roman age was far from static, least
of all at a socio-political level. For
example, by the third century there were far-reaching changes in the system of
taxation; new social hierarchies were emerging out of earlier systems; military
frameworks too were being altered, and both military and political structures
had been fundamentally changed by the time that Wales formed part of Britannia
Prima in the fourth century.
My
brief is to firstly, outline what the Resource Audit for our region informs us
about the region within the context of a SWOT analysis based upon some
traditional categories of site and artefact, falling within the compass of the
broad themes of Invasion and Military Occupation, Romanization/Acculturation
and Exploitation. Secondly, to consider
research strategies for the furtherance of our knowledge concerning the region
in the Roman period, including the addressing of new questions arising from
research issues in an over-arching Roman dimension.
INVASION
AND MILITARY OCCUPATION
Many
military sites, belonging to both the campaigning and the subsequent
garrisoning phases are known, and may be contextualised with reference to like
sites in Wales and the Marches as well as Roman Britain in general.
The
region has the largest number of marching-camps in Wales, some of which
can be tentatively linked with historically attested operations initiated
beyond the present day political boundary.
With
Gwent the region also has the greatest potential for understanding the course
of military operations in the pre-Flavian era (i.e. pre-AD 73/4). Sites such as Clyro, and Rhyn (both hard on
the border) are invaluable sources for the understanding the course of early
campaigning. In this context there are also a number of enigmatic, possibly
unique military sites in the Llanymynech area.
The
conquest and pacification of the region in the early Flavian period is
well established. It is probable that the majority of the auxiliary forts
founded in the Flavian period are known to us, though to judge by an analysis
of the road network, and the dearth of forts in NE Wales, some either remain
undiscovered (in the valley of the Banwy or the Vyrnwy) or a fresh appraisal of
the distribution of military posts is required. The situation in eastern Powys in particular needs to be
clarified.
All
known auxiliary forts have been subject to some excavation; some such as
Brecon Gaer, Caersws or Castell Collen on a large scale. Others, such as Caerau, Pen y Gaer, Cae
Gaer, Hindwell Farm and Colwyn Castle have received only the most cursory
treatment. The broad chronology of this
class of monument is nevertheless well established, but even in the context of
those well-explored forts changes in their internal layout and the date of the
refurbishment of defences and replacement of buildings in stone are by no means
firmly dated, whilst the reasons for such in a site-specific, as well as a
wider military context are either unclear or unknown.
Associated
military vici are known at a number of fort sites, though it is only at
Caersws that we can claim sound knowledge of their plan and overall history,
due to recurrent, recent and indeed continuing excavations. Caersws is one of the most intensively
excavated military vici in Britain, and we know more about its
chronology. Plan and economic activities focused upon it, than any comparable
site in Wales.
On
Llandrindod Common we have the largest cluster of practice-camps in
Wales (and in Britain as a whole).
At Holt
we have an exceptionally important complex serving the needs of the legionary
fortress at Chester insofar as brick/tile, and to a lesser extent pottery, is
concerned. Its remains are hitherto
unique. Though excavations were undertaken long ago, re-assessment of its
chronology and projected geophysical survey will enhance our knowledge of this
site.
The
chronology of the great majority of those sites connected with the
pre-Flavian and Flavian campaigning phases is imperfect. This is certainly the case with the
marching-camps (not an unusual state of affairs), but of more concern in the
case of campaigning bases such as Clyro or forts such as Hindwell Farm.
The
number of known pre-Flavian forts is very small. Does this reflect the true state of affairs or not? Those that are known cannot be presently
fitted into a chronologically sound pattern of military activity. Are there
pre- Flavian and Flavian forts to be discovered in the Clwyd valley and in NE
Wales in general? There are tentative
hints of such at Ruthin and Rhuddlan, but the matter remains to be resolved.
Some
so-called military sites - especially
some of those so categorized by the late G.D.B. Jones- may ultimately prove to be illusory. For example, sites in the Abertanat/Clawdd
Coch complex near Llanymynech, the so-called stores-base at Llansantffraid ym Mechain
and the ‘forts’ identified by him at Prestatyn and Ruthin.
Our
knowledge of some of the basic features of the Flavian and later military
posts -forts and fortlets- is extremely
poor, and largely based upon excavations undertaken up to half a century ago;
in some cases, as at Forden, even longer.
Small-scale excavations have also, for the most part, only produced the
most generalized information as to their overall chronology, whilst their
internal layout is sketchy in the extreme.
Virtually nothing is known of fort plans of the Flavian age. There is
also circumstantial evidence that some of the earliest Flavian forts may have
been large, and were subsequently abandoned in favour of standard types of
garrison bases (for example; Llwyn y Brain and Caersws). Such a tentative
sequence needs to be investigated.
For
some sites - Cae Gaer and the fortlets
in the region- there are scarcely any chronological indicators at all.
Whilst
small-scale excavations have produced snapshot chronologies -shaky in the extreme, and conceivably
faulty- they have proved incapable of addressing the more challenging issues
surrounding the history of the sites in question. Were they ever fully occupied?
Were forts held by units themselves divided between several forts?
Did
those forts which produce evidence of occupation in the mid-third to later
fourth century accommodate full-sized units in this period? Could there have been alternative uses for
such sites as police posts or repositories for local tax-dues? Why, for example, was the long-abandoned
fort at Forden re-occupied in the Valentinianic era?
Is
the site classified as a signal-station to the west of Hindwell Farm fort a
Roman military installation?
Caersws
and Castell Collen excepted, the extent, morphology and chronology of
associated military vici is far from clear. There are chronological hints as to the longevity of the vici
at Forden and Brecon Gaer, but no more.
Is there even a third-early fourth century vicus at Caersws? Such a dearth of basic information
pertaining to the growth, contraction and abandonment of vici severely
hinders any assessment of the relationship between military-related settlement
and civilian communities at large.
Is
there any evidence of continuity of settlement on a fort/vicus site into
the late-Roman/Early Christian period?
To
further examine the vicus at Caersws as housing infill continues.
To
elucidate the sequence at Forden in response to the long-term threat of plough
damage to this remarkable complex. The
existence of presumed pre Roman Iron Age and ?Early Medieval settlement in the
immediate vicinity makes this an ideal site for a long-term research project.
COMMUNICATION
SYSTEMS
The
strategic road system, intimately connected with the needs of military supply
has been extensively researched thanks to the fieldwork of individuals such as
W. Putnam, Prof G.D.B Jones and H. Toller and the course of many of the roads
is now securely established.
In
certain areas there is little firm evidence as to the routes taken by the
roads. For example, Chester – Caerhun;
Chester – Caer Gai; Caer Gai – Vyrnwy/Banwy area; the Wye valley/Usk valley
interface and the presumed Vale of Clwyd road.
There
are a number of alternative routes, some probably fanciful, in some of the
above areas but the ‘Roman Roads’ project currently under way by CPAT will lead
to a much better understanding of the system and an infilling of those blank or
speculative areas where roads are deemed to have existed but the routes not yet
determined.
Virtually
nothing known of the bridges spanning the major rivers of the region.
Nothing
known of other communication systems, such as sea-borne traffic and the use
made of navigable rivers.
Considerable
interest in the investigation of Roman roads, with both amateurs and
professionals engaged in research, utilising a variety of source material,
including antiquarian tradition, place-name evidence and data from aerial
photographs.
Lack
of collaborative effort and exchange of information.
Since
our region is bereft of towns all non-military settlements fall within the
compass of ‘Rural Settlement’, though there is a manifest distinction between
those which appear to reflect continuity -at least in terms of site location- from the pre-Roman Iron Age
and those which are manifestly products of Roman acculturation and sometimes
frequently associated with economic exploitation.
The
recognition of settlements occupied in the RB period through the existence of a
commonly found range of reasonably well-dated artefacts.
Those
sites that have been explored of late are all published. For example: Dinorben (H N Savory’s work),
The Breiddin, Collfryn, Rhuddlan, Pentre (Flint), Prestatyn, Maesderwen and
Broad Heath. There is a good
publication record in the region.
Those
that have been excavated have produced a valuable range of environmental
evidence, though the non-survival of animal bones is a problem in some parts of
the region.
There
is a recognisable diversity of site-type, ranging from a probable villa
(Maesderwen) to hillforts, to a variety of small, ditched and embanked
enclosures to caves. Such suggest a
settlement hierarchy and differences in economy as well as status.
Work
at Plas Coch (Wrexham) illustrates something if the nature and settlement
characteristics of the lowland RB landscape in our area, without having to
focus on a site-specific context.
The
tendency for some sites to have a pre-Roman phase allows the recovery of data
pertaining to such issues as settlement continuity and the social and economic
impact of conquest etc. However, some
sites, such as the enclosures investigated in the Walton Basin, seem to have
been abandoned before, or upon the conquest.
Or did they continue to be occupied without taking up clear indices of
Roman acculturation?
It
is considerably easier to discuss the weaknesses of the resource for this
region than its strengths.
The
total number of sites known to have been occupied in the RB period is tiny.
Indeed the proportion is the lowest in Wales.
Hillforts excepted, the evidence is also heavily biased towards the
Borderland and to enclosures in lowland settings. Large areas -Powys in
particular- are virtually devoid of evidence for settlement, even in those
areas where the density of pre-Roman Iron Age sites is such as to suggest that
occupation in the Roman period is inherently likely.
It
has been virtually impossible to discuss issues such as how settlement history
and economic practices were effected in the Roman period because of the
exceedingly small database. Similarly
issues such as continuity/discontinuity, the role of elites and the growth of a
market economy are difficult to debate.
Even data pertaining to the retention of customary architectural forms,
is small.
The
Resource Audit lists 7 villa-type settlements in the region, though this
appellation has been extended to administrative-type buildings such as that at
Pentre (Flint). Even the exact status
of the only building complex that has all the hallmarks of a late Roman
villa -Maesderwen- needs to be proved
beyond doubt.
A
number of hill-forts, particularly in the northern portion of our region, show
evidence of RB activity though its character is frequently unclear.
What
is their relationship to non hill-fort settlement in this period?
Cave
sites are again little understood. Is
the occupation domestic? The material
assemblages often suggest that ritual usage is more likely. Clarification is necessary here.
Scarcely
anything is known about land-use in general, though aerial photography and a
little surface evidence shows traces of fields/enclosures in the vicinity of
settlements such as Collfryn. The
chronology of such remains, however, is frequently uncertain.
There
is a general dearth of information concerning environmental issues in
general. Animal bone and crop
assemblages are scarce; hence a lack of some very basic comparative information
on subsistence strategies. How may we
begin to address issues such as to whether garrison posts in the region drew
their supplies from local resources, or changes in the economic basis of
contemporary settlements if we lack the basic environmental data?
There
is a variety of scattered artifactual evidence such as coins (including
hoards), pottery and sundry items of metalwork that testify to the introduction
of Romanised culture into a rural environment.
But how are these to be contextualized?
The full impact of changes in material culture brought about by a market
economy is presently beyond our grasp.
How may elite/peasant relationships be expressed in such terms? How do we go about challenging traditional
perceptions/narratives, such as Romanization, without good quality
evidence? In this respect it is possible
that the Portable Antiquities Scheme may prove valuable in providing better
information about the distribution of finds in general within the region.
Opportunities
for future research are most likely to be limited and confined to those areas
where development-led threats are most likely, such as the vicinity of towns
and villages; and in the NE part of the region in particular. However, the recent example of rescue
excavation at Arddleen illustrates the haphazard nature of such threats’ Here
it will facilitate the complete excavation of a lowland enclosure known to have
produced RB material.
Practically
any site in the region defended or otherwise, categorised as being of ‘Iron
Age’ date, for want of a better term, has the potential to demonstrate a RB
phase in its history. Thus, any threat,
involving excavation on such a site presents an opportunity to peer through a
window into the Romano-British period.
Whenever
possible the opportunity be taken to seek out traces of RB settlement in those
areas where such is a virtual blank; utilising aerial photography and field
survey, especially in those lowland areas such the middle Usk and upper Wye
valleys where such may be expected.
Aerial photography may demonstrate the existence of other villa-type
settlements in such areas, and as such a programme of this kind should be
accorded a high priority. Funding
should be adequate to cover the needs of more aerial reconnaissance over these
zones in bumper years. Similarly,
geophysics needs to be employed to sample the interior of some enclosures in
expectation of the recovery of Romanised types of building plans together with
anomalies such as may be caused by the presence of corn-driers, a frequently
occurring structural component of lowland farmsteads in the RB period.
In
the case of settlements of overtly Romanised character, such as Pentre (Flint),
Prestatyn, Ffrith and Plas Coch the full extent of these complexes needs to be
determined through geophysical survey
Environmental
sampling and analysis of promising peat/mire deposits, together with any
opportunities offered for the sampling of field/enclosure systems should be
exploited. The investigation of coastal peat deposits has much to contribute to
our understanding of the settlement pattern and landscape of the coastal strip
between the Dee and the Conwy.
Opportunities
for the investigation of RB activity within hillforts is likely to recur from
time to time. Large-scale work within
sites being destroyed through quarrying, such as The Breiddin, could produce
vital information.
The
possibility that fresh information is only likely to come from those areas
under pressure from urban expansion.
Elsewhere the small-scale development arising from economic development
is only likely to lead to fragmentary advances in knowledge, unless the nettle
is grasped and the excavation of plough-damaged sites (sites categorized as
under normal agricultural regimes) is undertaken on a regular, but selective
basis. Otherwise there is a clear threat
of stagnation in our knowledge.
The
possibility that there may be no large-scale excavations in the near future.
Inadequate
funding, particularly of aerial reconnaissance is likely to remain a problem
The
continued ploughing of low profile embanked and ditched enclosures and sites
reduced to cropmark status, is likely to lead to the continued degradation of
this resource in archaeological terms.
The
RB period saw the introduction of new technologies and crafts, and most
significantly a fundamental change in the scale of production and exchange.
Some
of the sites in our region have a high potential for the elucidation of
industrial processes, particularly those associated with the exploitation of
metalliferous deposits. Indeed, we have
more known, or suspected sites concerned with industrial processes in our
region than any other part of Wales.
For example, those connected with lead-silver extraction along the NE
seaboard. Hard on the border at
Llanymynech and in western Montgomeryshire we have other locations where
lead-silver and copper may have been extracted. Llanymynech in particular has high potential, since its ores were
certainly being exploited in the pre-Roman period, and the complex may be
particularly instructive in respect of continuity of exploitation.
We
know something of the administrative arrangements and the chronology of
lead-silver exploitation on the basis of Imperial stamped pigs, and from the
exploration of buildings such as the ‘villa’ at Pentre in the associated mining
settlements, together with arrangements for the shipment of the metals.
We
have the rare evidence of a workshop producing bronze brooches and other personalia
at Prestatyn. Whether this is native
opportunism is unclear.
Native
(?) iron smelting is known at Maesderwen and Gwernyfed Park in Powys.
Brick/tile
production, and pottery manufacture, is known at Holt and Caersws, with kilns
for the production of the former at both sites.
Water
technology is demonstrated by the ubiquity of wells in fort/vicus contexts,
whilst the region has the only excavated elements of a timber aqueduct in Wales
at Prestatyn.
Insofar
as metal extraction is concerned the extraction sites are unexplored, and much
interfered with by later workings.
Research has been largely focussed upon earlier prehistoric exploitation
The
excavation of processing sites and the associated infrastructure has been
largely small-scale.
The
context of some metalworking is unclear.
Are the furnaces at Gwernyfed Park civilian or military in origin? Was iron in billet form largely imported
into the region or did native communities play a key role in the exploitation
of local resources?
The
examination of pottery assemblages from military contexts (for example,
Caersws) makes it clear that local kilns were operating within the region in
the Flavian-Trajanic period. None of the production sites have been identified
to date, though they are likely to lie in close proximity to garrison bases. Did the products of these relatively
short-lived enterprises get into native hands?
Our
knowledge of the sourcing and the usage of ceramics on rural settlements is
extremely poor.
Whilst
small-scale industrial/craft activity is known in vicus-type contexts,
virtually nothing is known about those in purely native hands. Was craft-activity centralized or not? What was its scale?
We
can demonstrate the exploitation of the lithic resources of the region, and the
‘importation’ of stone from outside, as in the case of the slate tombstones
from a cemetery near Brecon Gaer; and even hazard the origin of the stone
utilised in building the fort walls at Caersws. But very little work has been
done on the trade in manufactured goods, such as quernstones, or on the
identification of quarries.
What
of tanning/curing of hides or the dying of cloth? Nothing is known of this activity, in either military or civil
contexts. Could the examination of
palaeoenvironmental deposits in excavated contexts throw light on this
activity?
We
would like to know whether the development of a transport infrastructure and
the need for military supply affected the distribution of traded
commodities? It is clear that military
and military-related sites produce different artefact assemblages in some
areas. Is this also true of our
region? We need to know what access
native communities had to the market; whether this pattern differed within our
region; and, how did it compare with other parts of Wales.
Continued
academic interest in artefact assemblages and in the distribution of finished
goods and consumables will lead to the comparative analysis of the incidence
and distribution of material within the region.
Continued
interest in early mineral extraction, and in mining sites in general, continues
at both amateur and professional level.
The enthusiasm of the former can produce break-throughs in our
knowledge, as illustrated in Early Bronze Age contexts in NW Wales.
Opportunities
for primary research certainly exists, but in the context of mining sites proof
of Roman working is most likely to emerge as a result of ‘tidying-up’
activities revealing datable artefacts on sites of post-Roman date.
‘Normal agricultural activity’ is damaging
the site at Holt, a site that is currently the subject of on-going programme of
collaborative research under the auspices of the Grosvenor Museum,
Chester. A programme of geophysical
survey should lead to a greater understanding of this complex.
Geophysical
survey in the vicinity of auxiliary forts may lead to the detection of pottery
and tile/brick kilns.
The
general character of military, military-related, and for want of a better
term ‘ classical Roman’ funerary
practices, associated with auxiliary forts and industrial complexes such as
Pentre, is reasonably clear.
Several
sites have produced examples of earlier Roman cremation burials (military and
civilian) together with later inhumations.
A RB landscape and a small cemetery were partly explored under
controlled conditions at Ruthin, whilst inhumations dug through vicus
deposits at Caersws testify to late Roman changes in funerary practice.
Whilst
the presence of some cemeteries can be broadly established, there is a
probability that the location of others may be influenced by the road system in
the vicinity of forts or industrial complexes.
Several
suspected ‘holy places’ are
identifiable in the archaeological record.
Of these two -Abercynafon and
Tre Owen, Newtown- show apparent continuity of watery places as cult foci into
the RB period.
The
evidence for funerary practices is heavily biased towards military
establishments. Virtually nothing is
known of funerary custom among the native community. Is the remarkable
Smithfield (Welshpool) deposit in any way typical of rites practised by the
elite?
We
do not know to what extent pre-Roman funerary practices continue into the RB
period, and those of the Roman age into the Early Christian period. It is tempting to see the Tandderwen-type
necropolis as originating within the RB period. In this respect we may note the grave surrounded by a square
enclosure/? roofed building at Ruthin in an apparently early Roman context.
We
have scant information on those buried in ‘military’ cemeteries, and on the
differences in burial rite and grave type, from ‘bustum’ –type graves to built
tombs. Only three tombstones are known,
all from one site, Brecon Gaer.
No
certain temples/shrines are known in a military context, let alone outside the
military sphere. No altars/dedications to illuminate cult activity and examples
of syncretism are known.
There
has been no attempt to certainly establish the existence of a built shrine in
this period. The testing of the square
enclosure -possibly a temenos -
close to Forden Gaer, with inconclusive results, is about as far as research
has gone. It is conceivable that
geophysical survey may throw light on these enigmatic viereckschanzen.
We
know nothing about the early Christian community -if such existed- in the region.
The
possibility that work on multi-period burial sites may throw light on one
aspect of native funerary practice in the Roman period.
Geophysical
survey to determine the extent of cemetery areas in the vicinity of auxiliary
forts. Similarly, examination of viereckschanze
– type enclosures in order to determine whether some, or all, may be cult
foci.
A
lack of interest in the subject. The
relatively invisible nature of much of the subject matter, and the absence of
built shrines inhibits a scholarly input.
Where
do we want to go in the future? How
might we prioritise future research?
Clearly,
we cannot address socio-economic issues differently and challenge accepted
concepts, as urged by the contributors to James & Millett’s volume, without
substantial enhancement of our database embracing many fields. Indeed, we are still at a basic
data-gathering stage in our region.
On
the military front the search for and investigation of pre-Flavian
installations -marching-camps,
campaign bases and auxiliary forts should continue. Much also remains unclear as to the chronology of the Flavian and
later military occupation, particularly the strength of the auxiliary garrison
in the second century and beyond. The
investigation of forts with an apparent third-fourth century occupation is also
urgently required.
The
Roman Forts Environs Project undertaken by the Gwynedd Archaeological Trust has
produced excellent results. It should
be extended to every site in Wales, thereby enabling us to target resources to
face any future threat to vici and other elements of these complexes, as
well as allowing more effective management of these sites as a whole.
It
is imperative that we begin to address the problem of the invisibility of rural
settlements of the Roman period in certain parts of our region. A programme of targeted research excavations
seems to be the only way forward here.
The launching of Wroxeter Hinterland-type projects focussing upon the
relationship between military and civilian in areas such as those surrounding
Caersws or Forden, coupled with a chronologically wider programme of landscape
analysis and environmental sampling, is desirable.
The
lack of evidence for settlement continuity between the late Roman and Early Christian
period needs to be addressed. The
existence of such is hinted at by evidence from sites such as New Pieces. In this respect certain critical zones, such
as the area around Forden, have some potential for establishing long-term
occupation sequences.
An
acceleration of adequately funded aerial reconnaissance to target key areas
where crop-mark formation is likely to produce evidence of both early military
sites and settlements of the pre-Roman Iron Age and RB period. An additional bonus here would be the
detection of high-status, stone-built farms, as has occurred in
Shropshire. Cross-border co-operation
in respect of such a project is highly desirable.
The
interest which the discovery of maritime remains have aroused in SE Wales could
be tapped through the investigation of the late prehistoric/RB foreshore, if,
as seems likely, the coastline extended further inland than it does
to-day. Since the transport of lead
pigs to the Wirral is archaeologically demonstrable, we could well find Roman
wharfing facilities on the Flintshire coast.
It
is essential that research programmes embracing later prehistory take note of
the high probability of a Roman dimension, and that collaborative schemes be
undertaken given the fact that our region straddles the border between England
and Wales.
This
document’s copyright is held by contributors and sponsors of the Research
Framework for the Archaeology of Wales.